Constructed Spaces: Affordances and a Theology of the Built Environment in Christian Early Childhood Education

Abstract

Drawn from a wider study, the research reported here utilised a phenomenology of practice to investigate Australian early childhood teachers’ perceptions of constructed spaces that enhance the Christian education of children. The study was conceptually framed by the notions of constructed space, affordance theory and a theology of the built environment. Four participants were interviewed using Zoom, and their transcripts analysed using a phenomenological framework. The analysis indicated that the constructed space yielded five types of affordances—emotional space, embodied space, physical space, relational space and theological space. The findings suggest that it is the constructed environment of the early childhood centre itself that affords particular types of spaces, such as emotional space, embodies space and so on. The findings also indicate that it is the educator who makes the difference in seeing the possibility for and creating such spaces, and their intentionality in acting to create such spaces. While there are limitations to this study, including the small sample size, the findings nonetheless indicate the importance of the constructed space in enhancing the Christian education of young children in early childhood educational contexts.

1. Introduction

There is an emerging body of research investigating features of learning environments that enhance the education of children in early childhood and early learning contexts (e.g., Blackmore et al. 2011; Matthews and Lippman 2020). However, to date, there is very little evidence of such research being applied to Christian early learning centres. This is surprising given that there are now a number of organisations in Australia promoting Christian education for young children from birth to eight years of age (e.g., Christian Early Learning [CEL] 2023; Godly Play in Australia 2025). This study investigated how early childhood teachers’ perceptions of constructed spaces enhance the Christian education of children. While the first named author has undertaken some preliminary work (Hyde 2022), this is an area in which there has been relatively little previous research. This project, then, makes a modest but significant contribution to new knowledge in the field of early childhood Christian education.

The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia V2 (AGDE 2022) provides early childhood education centres with a series of principles to inform educational programs and practices in early childhood education. It provides guidance in relation to the importance of learning environments. In terms of learning environments, the Framework states the following:

Learning environments include physical, temporal, social and intellectual elements. Welcoming, safe and inclusive indoor and outdoor learning environments reflect, respect, affirm the identities, and enrich the lives of children and families.

(p. 23)

Thus, the AGDE (2022) provides the impetus for analysis of the stated qualities of learning environments—physical, temporal, social and intellectual. It also indicates how such qualities are enabled/developed through the construction of spaces and the affordances offered by the spaces of early childhood learning, specifically in Christian early learning centres in relation to the study reported here.

In Australia, attendance at early learning centres is funded by the federal government. The AGDE (2022) supports early childhood providers, teachers and educators in extending and enriching children’s learning from birth to 5 years through the transition to school (p. 4). It guides the learning programs in all centres. Most early learning centres are secular, meaning that they do not provide educational experiences in religion. However, a growing number of early learning centres are established on Christian foundations. While optional, these Christian early learning centres are growing in popularity, with many parents choosing to send their children to these centres. It is estimated that there are 480 providers of Christian early learning in Australia with more than 100,000 children utilising some form of care in these centres (Christian Early Learning [CEL] 2023).

2. Conceptual Framing

This research was framed using the notions of the constructed space, affordance theory and a theology of the built environment.

2.1. The Constructed Space

There is a growing body of literature researching the affordances of built learning environments and indoor spaces in both early childhood and school settings (Blackmore et al. 2011; Matthews and Lippman 2020; Rands and Gansemer-Topf 2017; Sando 2019). Fain (in Callejo-Perez et al. 2004) describes a constructed space as one that requires some things to be eliminated, and some things to be minimised as form is given to the space. He argues “the construction of space is not so much what we add to the space we are creating but rather what we take from the realm of possibility of choice” (Fain cited in Callejo-Perez et al. 2004, p. 20). Constructivist views of learning suggest that how an individual encounters a space or an object will be shaped by their dispositions, their beliefs, their past experiences and their understanding (Warden 2018). Within early years education, educators are guided to “plan and create environments both indoor and outdoor that promote and support different types of play for children’s active engagement, agency, problem solving, curiosity, creativity and exploration” (AGDE 2022, p. 22). Therefore, the concept of constructed spaces is arguably inherent in the Framework. It offers opportunities for early learning educators to consider the affordances of certain additions or absences from the space. The study reported here sought to understand what these additions or absences are in order to afford children a Christian early education learning experience.

2.2. Affordance Theory and the Early Learning Space

The AGDE (2022) outlines pedagogical guidance for early learning educators including affordance theory, a theory that asks educators “to think, for example, about the possibilities for activity that the physical environment offers children” (p. 13). The “possibilities for activity” suggested by the Framework intersect with Gibson’s (1979) affordance theory—the concept of the environment being able to guide movement or behaviour—and offers insight into children’s movements and behaviour in the early learning environment. Each learning space will differ and will be influenced by the physical attributes, planning and ‘additions’ to the space. Gibson proposes that “The environment provides different opportunities depending upon the ‘actors’ and their needs…the environment provides different opportunities for different people” (Gibson 1979). Heft (1988), also drawing on Gibson, states, “The affordances of an environment are its functionally significant properties considered in relation to an individual. An object that is smaller than the hand-span if a particular individual is perceived by that person to be graspable, that is it affords grasping” (p. 1).

The concept of affordance emanates from the functionalist approach to psychology. Affordances can be conceived of as one of the most intuitive objects of perception: doors are pushable, chairs are sit-on-able, floors are walkable and so on (Segundo-Ortin and Heras-Escribano 2024).

Building on the work of Chemero (2009), Rietveld and Kiverstein (2014) indicate that affordances can be understood as being both relational and a resource. Affordances are relations between aspects of the material environment and abilities that are available in a form of life (that is, normative behaviours and customs of human communities). This draws attention to the sociocultural element in affordance theory, in which the material environment has been fashioned by the sociocultural practices of people into a “sociomaterial environment” (p. 335). This has implications for early childhood education, since through the educative process, children learn selectively to act on certain affordances in their environment while ignoring others. Conversely, early childhood teachers may plan and prepare particular types of affordances within environments, while ignoring others.

Further, individuals can be drawn to act on one particular affordance as opposed to another. This is known as “solicitation” (Dreyfus and Kelly 2007) and describes how the affordance is related to a person’s current concerns, as opposed solely to the existence of the affordance itself. Thus, when, for instance, a child experiences a tendency to act in a certain way, Rietveld and Kiverstein (2014) argue that this is because the child has been solicited by one or other of the many possibilities for action available in that situation, or environment.

Affordances are defined as opportunities for bodily action. However, Segundo-Ortin and Heras-Escribano (2024) have attempted to extend the notion of affordance to include mental or cognitive actions. They note the challenges inherent in expanding this notion, maintaining that “we have neither a proper explanation of how mental or cognitive affordances are perceived (or otherwise experienced), nor a proper justification for thinking that performing ‘mental acts’ requires the perception of said affordances” (p. 1651).

There is also a distinction between physical affordances and sociocultural affordances, that is, how people themselves may function as affordances. de Carvalho (2020) notes that these are social affordances because of the possibilities for interactions that are presented by people. Gibson (1979) understood social affordances as foundational and underpinned by sociocultural practices. Thus, teachers and early childhood educators may be understood to be affordances themselves in certain situations.

Affordance theory has commonly been applied to outdoor spaces in early childhood contexts (e.g., Sando and Sandseter 2020; Sandseter and Kennair 2011; Warden 2018). In such research, affordances have been shown to promote health and wellbeing through physical play in the outdoor environment. This includes ‘risky play’—thrilling and exciting forms of play that may involve a (small) risk of physical injury. Children test possibilities and boundaries for action within their environment through play, most often without being aware that this is what they are doing (Sandseter and Kennair 2011; Hansen Sandseter et al. 2022).

However, aspects of affordance theory also provide rich perspectives in relation to how indoor spaces are constructed, what is placed in a space, what is left unconstructed, by whom, and the intentionality. In terms of the research reported in this paper, the concept of affordances provides a useful framework that bridges understandings of ‘space’ and ‘action’ towards an appreciation of spatial environments (Young et al. 2019; Young and Cleveland 2022) as spaces for enacting spirituality.

In relation to Christian early learning environments, the construction of space and the affordances of such spaces, the perspectives of educators are a central focus. Indeed, the research considered how educators consider themselves as a social affordance through the intentionality of their practice (Hyde 2022, 2025).

2.3. A Theology of the Built Environment

To be human is to be placed: often to be born in a particular house, or hospital (Gorringe 2002). A theological reading of the built environment concerns our experience of being placed, and the extent to which God is both revealed and concealed in our experience of space. Constructed spaces, as Gorringe (2002) argues, reveal who and what God is for people in particular places at particular times. This includes the early childhood setting in Christian contexts.

Built space is both a physical entity as well as a socially and historically constructed place (Bergmann 2009; Rae 2017). However, Graham (2011) writes of the significance of space and place for “finding ourselves”—not just on a grid reference, but as fully human. Built environments, carefully constructed, can enable people to “find” themselves and experience what it means to be fully human. Sometimes, this is referred to as being “at home” in a particular space (van Manen 1990; Merleau-Ponty 2004). As Sheldrake (2001) maintains, “we need a place where we can belong to a community… a place that offers access to the sacred” (p. 10). Such spaces are indeed those that reveal who and what God is for people. Christian early childhood settings affording close attention to the constructed spaces, and attending to the types of spaces created within such built environments, provide opportunities for children to discover who God is for them. They enable children to “find” themselves and to be “at home” in those spaces. As Graham (2011) notes, the significance of place and space is indeed about belonging and being at home.

When we think of space, we usually refer to the mathematical dimensions of space—height, length, area, and so on. Yet space, as it is experienced, is more difficult to put into words because the experience of lived space is pre-verbal—we do not ordinarily reflect on it (van Manen 1990). In considering faith and religion, God can be experienced in particular spaces—not just in churches and cathedrals, but in other types of built spaces (Rae 2017). Gorringe (2002) maintains a Trinitarian ethic is at the heart of all built environments—an ethic of creation, reconciliation, and redemption:

God the Creator is the one who brings order out of chaos, and is therefore the source of all order and of the planning which gives form to our world… God the Reconciler is the one who ‘breaks down the walls of partition’ both between God and humans and between humans themselves. God is therefore the source of all attempts to realise community and of the justice without which community cannot survive. God the Redeemer is the author of all dreams and visions, the author of the imagination which seeks the new Jerusalem and anticipates it in structures here and now.

(Gorringe 2002, p. 5)

While theological in intent, this nonetheless reinforces that God—Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer—is present in, and can be experienced in built spaces, including early childhood centres.

3. Methodology and Research Design

Although drawn from a wider study, the research reported in this paper utilised key principles from van Manen’s (2014) phenomenology of practice. This refers to “the practice of phenomenological research and writing that reflects on and in practice and prepares for practice” and which serves to “strengthen and embodied ontology, epistemology, and axiology of thoughtful and tactful action” (p. 15). It is a reflective process that attempts to express the ways in which people experience their lives as they live them, with the aim of being able to act practically with thoughtfulness and tact.

The phenomenology of practice is useful for those working in professional capacities, such as nurses and teachers. It serves professional practitioners who “are interested in approaching their professional tasks, personal activities, and everyday experiences in a phenomenological style” (van Manen 2014, p. 23). It can be applied to being an architect, or indeed, an early childhood educator. It is suited to investigating early childhood teachers’ perceptions of constructed space that enhance the Christian education of children.

From the wider study for which ethics approval was granted from our institution, four participants gave their written consent through a Plain Language Statement and Consent Form to be interviewed and for their quotes to be used. They provided contact details so that interviews could be arranged at a mutually agreeable time. The interviews were conducted via Zoom and lasted for approximately 30 min. Zoom interviews can enhance human encounters and have been advocated for even when in-person events are possible (Hyde and Rouse 2023). The Zoom interviews were recorded in both audio and visual form for the purposes of transcription and analysis. The audio and visual recordings allowed us to reflect not only on what was said, but also on participants’ facial expressions, intonations, and other bodily cues, all of which assisted the analysis. Questions asked included “What do you think are the particular qualities of this space that are conducive for Christian education?” and “How do you think the children experience this space?”

That there were only four participant interviews needs to be justified. In phenomenological research, the aim is not empirical generalisation, and so questions about the number of participants are less relevant. In this vein, van Manen (2014) argues that too many participant transcripts “encourage shallow reflection” (p. 333). The aim, he argues, is rather to “gather enough experientially rich accounts that make possible the figuration of powerful experiential examples or anecdotes that help to make contact with life as it is lived” (p. 353). We believe that the findings outlined below, and our phenomenological reflection on them, accomplish this aim.

The analysis was undertaken using van Manen’s (2014) phenomenology of practice The transcripts were read, and the video recordings were watched multiple times to discern notions of affordances from what the participants had said in these recordings. These were then grouped thematically as indicated below.

Of particular importance in this study was the phenomenological notion of space. Lived space is “the existential theme that refers us to the world or landscape in which human beings move and find themselves at home” (van Manen 1990, p. 102). It is “space in which the heart feels…space which is close to us and with which we are organically connected” (Merleau-Ponty 2004, p. 54). Lived space, then, guided the analysis of the four interviews. The aim was not to be able to make broad generalisations. Rather, the aim was to explore the ways in which these participants understood and created spaces in their early childhood contexts that nurtured and enhanced the Christian education of children in their care.

4. Findings and Analysis

Findings from the interviews were analysed using the phenomenological framework outlined above, focussing on the notion of lived space. They indicated that constructed space yielded five types of affordances in common amongst all four participants—emotional space, embodied space, physical space, relational space and theological space.

4.1. Affordance—Emotional Space

“…emotions are atmospheres poured out spatially that move the felt (not the material) body”.

(Schmitz et al. 2011, p. 247)

While the physical spaces of environments are important, an interesting finding from these participants was the necessity of emotional space, and the ways in which the physical environments of early learning centre can be created to foster emotional space for children. Participant One expressed this clearly, saying the following:

“The difference is the emotional space that comes when you have Christian educators. It’s that emotional connection, that all children are God’s children, and they all deserve the best start in life.”

This same participant went on to talk about the importance of creating emotional spaces within the physical environment. She said the following:

“We use the circle of security, and we create an emotional environment as well in which children can feel safe… an educator comes alongside her (the child), and she connects with them, and she calms down. She’s safe—she matters”.

Participant Two noted the importance of emotional space, indicating a calmness that children experienced when entering an environment where an emphasis has been placed on creating an emotional space:

…the children feel calm in this space too because of the predictability—you definitely notice the difference in body language and noise levels between when children are arriving outside the room, and when they come in the room.

For Participant Three, incorporating an active use of the Bible within the physical environment helped to create and nurture an emotional space. She indicated the following:

…we intertwine Bible stories with, for instance, learning about our emotions and our feelings in being worried and anxious, and to turn to Jesus in times of trouble, or are in moments by themselves where they’re getting anxious…

This same participant went on to further elaborate, saying, in relation to the account of Jesus calming the storm, that “Jesus gets up and calms the storm and we will intertwine that with learning about our emotions and our feelings in being worried and anxious”.

Intimacy, safety, and trust were, for one of the participants, key features of an environment that created and nurtured emotional space. She indicated the following:

…spaces that provide the opportunity to create intimacy and safety. Trust…trusting reciprocal relationships between children and educators… [we consider] routine, rituals and rhythms and what they might look like in our spaces—in building safety for children, the value of being known.

For these participants, the ways in which these environments were able to create and nurture emotional spaces within them enabled them to act as an affordance to also serve to nurture and enhance the Christian education of children.

4.2. Affordance—Embodied Space

“I am not in space and time, nor do I conceive space and time; I belong to them, my body combines with them and includes them”.

(Merleau-Ponty 1978, p. 140)

For the human being, one’s experience of the world is always and necessarily a bodily experience. People encounter one another through a bodily presence—a handshake, an embrace, a smile, and so on (van Manen 1990). Being present—carefully attending to the here and now of experience (Hyde 2008)—through attention to our bodies’ interaction with Self and Other in the space in which we find ourselves connects with Merleau-Ponty’s (1978) notion of body as not being separate from space and time, but rather of combining and including them, an embodiment.

The participants all expressed this notion of embodiment. For instance, in speaking about the children’s own bodies, Participant One said the following:

We actually need to bring the preschoolers to a sense that they can use their bodies and that helps keep them activated in that space. So that is probably the biggest part in terms of space.

This participant went on to say that when children embody space in this way, “it feels like there’s this sense of peace and joy, and just when you watch the way they’re engaging with other each other, they’re busy. They’re learning, they’re communicating. They’re talking—they’re happy”.

Participant Three spoke about developing a greater sense of ownership of the space in the early learning centre. She said that she “would like to see children being more involved in maintaining the space”, and that she would like to devise ways of scaffolding children into physically caring for the early learning centre’s environment.

In speaking about space and the telling stories from the Bible, Participant Two indicated that “children are able to go and re-enact those stories themselves”. In other words, in re-enacting those stories, the children are embodying them physically and corporeally. There is a sense in which these stories then “become a part of who they are”.

The notion of ’risky play’ was also mentioned by Participant Four. Risky play does not mean engaging in dangerous and reckless behaviour. Rather, it refers to play that involves thrilling, exciting, physically challenging activities like climbing, jumping, balancing, or rough and tumble play, as well as hiding or seclusion from the constant surveillance of adults (Sandseter and Kennair 2011; Hansen Sandseter et al. 2022). Risky play involves embodiment on the part of the child. Participant Four noted that in her early learning centre, “quite a few spaces are set up for risky play and the idea they [the children] are capable”. These spaces included both indoor and outdoor spaces in which the children may have been solicited by one or other of the many possibilities for action available in that environment (Rietveld and Kiverstein 2014). That is, they may have been drawn to act on one particular affordance as opposed to another.

4.3. Affordance—Physical Space

“The architectural space is more than a physical space, and it always exceeds geometry and measurability”.

(Soltani and Kirci 2019, p. 2)

The physical space of a constructed environment is important. Architectural space “serves life” (Soltani and Kirci 2019, p. 5), and designing experiences in architectural space should, then, be one of the main goals of those who design such spaces. The physical space within a constructed environment therefore acts as a possible affordance for nurturing and enhancing the Christian education of young children.

This notion particularly came to the fore with participants who utilised the Godly Play1 method in their early childhood contexts. For instance, Participant Two spoke about “The threshold the children cross and are then ready to hear the story”. The threshold is a physical boundary that children cross to enter a Godly Play space. It could consist of entering a room specifically set up for Godly Play through a doorway, or perhaps crossing the floor from an open space onto a mat. This same participant spoke of the physical space for Godly Play, particularly the design of the shelving, saying the following:

Children are drawn particularly to the objects that suit them. We have a focal shelf, with the Holy Family at the top. It is a curated arrangement. The materials used impact on the children…having concrete objects actually helps them to visualise and verbalise what they are thinking and making meaning from.

Other participants who did not utilise the Godly Play method also spoke about the importance of the physical use of space. For instance, Participant One stated the following:

We have used the ‘concierge service’. We greet children at the front door and bring them into the space, and we begin by praying with them. It improves their separation and anxiety and helps with their self-skills and independence.

Some participants spoke about the need to have what they termed, ‘uncluttered’ physical spaces. For instance, Participant Three indicated the following:

We prefer to have an uncluttered look—where there is clutter it is in the form of furniture that we want to remove. I think that perhaps people want to create stimulating rooms but we have perhaps put too much within rooms, which isn’t really helpful!

Similarly, in speaking about ‘uncluttered spaces’, Participant Two maintained that “Open space is really important because you feel physically uncluttered, and there’s flexibility for children’s posture and groupings”. This idea of the affordance of a physically uncluttered space was supported by the comments of Participant Four, who said “we prefer to have uncluttered spaces…we try to have a number of spaces set up within each room that are a bit more open-ended to encourage small groups of children to gather”. Participant One summed up her frustration in trying to create an environment that was uncluttered, indicating that if the room was always cluttered, “You never have enough space for anything. It’s always messy!”.

The ways in which these environments had been architecturally designed, and the physicality of the spaces themselves, or indeed the physicality that was enabled in these environments, acted as an affordance that served to nurture and enhance the Christian education of children for these participants. Effectually, these participants indicated notions of space as “solicitation”, affording opportunities for enhancing Christian education.

4.4. Affordance—Relational Space

“The relationships people maintain with others in the interpersonal space they share”.

(van Manen 1990, p. 104)

Relational space refers to the way in which people utilise space to connect with one another and the intimacies that draw people to unite (and to reunite). van Manen (1990) notes that, in a larger existential sense, people have always searched in their experience of the Other. In a religious sense, one can only really come to know oneself through relation with God. In the early childhood centres of the participants, relational space was brought to the fore in terms of the interactions that took place between the educators and the children, between the children themselves, and between each child and God. This was particularly evident when Participant One indicated the following:

You can have the most beautiful environment and have spent a fortune on resources, but if you don’t have the right educators, it makes no difference. And if you have interaction between children and educators that promote a positive self-image of the child, then that opens up relationships. It comes back to people, who are wonderfully made in the image of God.

The above response begins to reflect something of the notion of a relational God, and this aspect was clearly expressed by Participant Three, who said the following:

Christianity is relational (with God and the children). Our space won’t look anything different to a ‘normal’ kindergarten, except that it’s a space speaks of our values and what’s important to us—the children, our relationship with them and with God…

This same participant went on to speak more explicitly about the idea of a relational God. She said, “we want to be able to help children understand that God is relational, that God loves them, and that God speaks to us through the Bible”.

Participant Two spoke of the nature of the relationship between staff, parents and children, and how this was evidenced when children from families who were not necessarily Christian came into the centre:

…not all families are Christian families, and so they’re coming into a space that is a little different to what they may have experienced before, and they comment on the loveliness of the space—the relationality of the space.

Participant One told a short anecdote to illustrate the relational nature of the space in her early learning centre. She said the following:

[the staff member] came out and one little girl had had just arrived, and she hadn’t said hello to her. The staff member said, “I must go and say hello to her. I haven’t greeted her today”. And I just thought that was just beautiful, because each child can see that they’re valued and welcomed by that interaction with that staff member. So, it’s just something that they intentionally do… each child can see that they’re welcomed into this space by the interaction they have with staff…

The ways in which the environments of these early learning centres focussed on the interactions and relationships between staff, parent, children and God acted as a relational affordance that served to nurture and enhance the Christian education of children for these participants.

4.5. Affordance—Theological Space

“To be human is to be placed…Profound, creative, grace-filled spiritualities produce grace-filled environments”.

(Gorringe 2002, pp. 23, 24)

The notion of a theological space emanates from the concept of a theology of the built environment. God is both revealed and concealed in our experience of space, and constructed spaces reveal who and what God is for people in particular places and at particular times (Gorringe 2002). One of the participants summed this up aptly in her own words, stating that “God is in everything and our children’s experiences in all the physical spaces—we hope and pray that is what they experience”.

Some participants expressed the notion of a theological space through the use of prayer, worship and Bible stories. For instance, and in relation to Bible stories, Participant Three said the following:

While you won’t see a cross on the wall or anything really religious, during the course of the day the children will be read a Bible story that will have something to do with the theme they are investigating. We want the Bible to be part of the curriculum and to be able to teach the children from the Biblical framework in every aspect, for instance, Noah and the Ark.

Interestingly, Participant Four, specifically in relation to praying, used a phrase that she herself had devised—‘worship parties’ to describe the theological application of the space in her early learning centre used as a form of prayer. She said, “…we do like to utilize our spaces for kind of big opportunities for worship parties”. When asked about this phrase, she indicated that it was a term she herself had devised to describe the kind of prayer in which children were invited to participate that utilised space in a joyful way.

Other participants expressed the notion of a theological space through the Godly Play method that they utilised as a part of their program. For instance, Participant Two said the following:

The space is purposefully used for Godly Play. I don’t know if it was designed specifically for Godly Play, but it is set aside for Godly Play. It is purposeful because the resources are laid out in a systematic way.

In a similar vein, Participant Three spoke about Godly Play and its usage within her centre as a “space within a space”. She said the following:

Having this ‘space within a space’ with concrete objects actually helps them to visualise what they are thinking and meaning…the children engage with the stories and ask questions…it helps them to find God in this space.

Participant One saw the space in which the children in her care were placed as a ministry. In a theological sense, the space for her was one of—and to use this participant’s own words—“Kingdom business”. This was a phase the participant herself had devised, referring to the way in which she could bring about the Reign of God—the Kingdom of God in the here and now, and in the space in which she was working.

The ways in which the environments of these early learning centres had been drawn on by early childhood teachers with a realisation that God was both revealed and concealed within those spaces acted as a theological affordance that served to nurture and enhance the Christian education of children for these participants.

5. Discussion

Lived space refers to felt space. When thinking of space, it is common to think of geometrical space, that is, the dimensions of space—height, length, depth, and so on. While the findings of this project indicate these dimensions of space are important (e.g., when one participant stated that “We prefer to have an uncluttered look—where there is clutter it is in the form of furniture that we want to remove”), lived space refers to the landscape in which people move and in which they consider themselves at home. “Home is where we can be what we are” (van Manen 1990, p. 102). Hence, a phenomenological reflection on the findings above inquires into the nature of the lived space that renders the phenomenon of the Christian education of young children its quality of meaning.

Merleau-Ponty (2002) argues that “space is not the setting (real or logical) in which things are arranged, but the means whereby the position of things becomes possible” (p. 284). The ‘position of things becoming possible’ in the findings above reflects this understanding. From the themes that emerged from an analysis of the interviews, it becomes clear that, for these participants, it is the environment of the early learning centre that affords the creation of particular types of spaces—physical, embodied, emotional, relational and theological—that serve to enhance Christian education for young children. This became especially clear when participants used phrases such as “space with a space”, trying to have “a number of spaces set up within each room…”, and “spaces that provide the opportunity to create intimacy and safety” to capture this notion. It was further highlighted by the participant who spoke about the creation of a space for worship parties when she stated, “We do like to utilize our spaces for kind of big opportunities for worship parties”. It also came to the fore with those participants who utilise the Godly Play approach in their centre, who indicated that “[this space] is set aside for Godly Play”, and “The space is purposefully used for Godly Play”.

This notion of the environment affording the creation of a diverse range of spaces that act to enhance Christian education for young children is important. Such a notion is not so much reliant on having large budgets to build facilities as it is on having early childhood educators who are capable and skilled in being able to see the possibilities that a particular environment might afford and utilising those spaces appropriately and creatively. Each of the spatial affordances highlighted above—physical, embodied, emotional, relational and theological—is then not ‘money-dependent’, but is rather contingent on the skill and imagination of the early learning educators.

This then leads to a second key understanding that emerges from the findings, that educators are social affordances (de Carvalho 2020). It is who the educators are and how they intentionally act and interact that make the difference. As one participant so aptly put it, “You can have the most beautiful environment and have spent a fortune on resources, but if you don’t have the right educators, it makes no difference”. It is the interaction between children and educators that promotes a positive self-image of the child, and that then, to use this same participant’s words, “opens up relationships. It comes back to people, who are wonderfully made in the image of God”.

In other words, it is the behaviour and intent of the early childhood educator in seeing the possibility for and creating such spaces that are critical. If educators can see the opportunities for nurturing Christian education through the creation of these spaces—physical, embodied, emotional, relational and theological—then the affordance of space has been acted upon (Hyde 2025). In this sense, the early childhood educator is, in fact, a social affordance. It is interesting to think of people as ‘affordances’, since most early childhood educators would not think of themselves in this way. Yet, they are social affordances (de Carvalho 2020). As Young et al. (2019) argue, people in the educational setting—teachers and children—are identified as such because they afford a range of experiential opportunities. Early childhood educators are the ones who prepare the environment in such a way that they present opportunities for discovery and learning, both direct and indirect. They are the ones who facilitate various experiences for children. As such, it can be argued they are indispensable and have a key role to play. Through their close observation of the children in their care, they not only afford particular behaviours and actions, but they know when to intervene and when to ‘get out of the way’ so as not to become the obstacle that comes between the child and the child’s experience (Montessori 1965). Thus, there is an important and necessary connection to be made between the educator valuing Christian education and intentionally enacting a pedagogy that enables this to happen (e.g., the inclusion of worship parties). If the educator sees opportunities for creating particular spaces within the environment and designs these, then the affordance has been acted upon (Rouse and Hyde 2024). The implication here too (and a caution) is that, in drawing from Rietveld and Kiverstein (2014), it is possible that early childhood teachers may plan and prepare particular types of affordances within environments, while potentially ignoring others and the action possibilities these may afford.

6. Conclusions

The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia V2 (the Framework) (AGDE 2022) explicitly states that learning environments include “physical, temporal, social and intellectual elements” (p. 23). It also states that “Welcoming, safe and inclusive indoor and outdoor learning environments reflect, respect, affirm the identities, and enrich the lives of children and families” (p. 23). There is a clear remit here for focussing on the spaces that these learning environments may afford for the Christian education of young children.

In light of this, some tentative and provisional recommendations can be made from the findings of this project. Firstly, opportunities for professional development for early childhood educators centred on the notion of constructed space, and how it may both nurture and enhance the Christian education of young children, are paramount. In Australia, there are a number of Christian professional education bodies that could readily incorporate this into their professional learning opportunities for early childhood teachers.

Importantly, further research is needed to extend upon the findings of this present study to ascertain how early childhood educators discern the features of their environments, as constructed spaces, that enhance the Christian education of children. It would be valuable to conduct a larger study so that the findings might be more generalisable. Indeed, this was a limitation of this present project, as was the fact that only a small number of participants were sought. A larger mixed-method study may render findings that are more generalisable.

A second limitation of this paper is that it has tended to place the emphasis on the adult educators who facilitate the environment, rather than focussing on children as co-creators of environments. This research has interviewed educators and sought their views, but this is not to deny the importance of children’s voices in the development and creation of space. Further research might also find ways of including the views and ideas of children in relation to those aspects of their environments that nurture their relationship with God.

Nonetheless, this present study has yielded a set of original and insightful findings that may prove helpful for early childhood teachers and pave the way for more extensive research in this area.